But would we really all "be speaking German" had the Nazis won? I think that the emphatic answer to this is no (the combined British and American fleets would have stopped any German invasion attempt). But what WOULD a plausible post-World War II Nazi world look like?
For the sake of simplicity (mainly since it affects how the post-war map would be drawn), I'm going to drastically streamline what it would have taken for Germany to win the war. Two pivotal battles, Stalingrad and El Alamein in 1942, would prove to be the turning point of the war in many respects in hindsight. So let's assume that the Germans actually win both of those battles. It could be due to any reason, the fortunes of war, bravery in combat, superior leadership, etc.
Assuming victories in those two battles allows for the possibility of the following to happen: With a victory at Stalingrad, Germany pushes further into the Russian steppe and eventually reaches the oil fields of Caucasus. With oil in hand and morale high, the Germans continue to push into Russian territory. In the Middle East, the German-Italian victory at El Alamein propels Rommel into Alexandria. Playing off of the frustrations of Arabs living under British colonial rule, Rommel continues to push into the middle east with their support, eventually linking up with German forces in Russia in the Caucasus mountains. These two successes result in an uptick of support for Mussolini and Italy remains in the war (they historically exited in 1943). With Italian support, Vichy France is able to defend against Operation Torch, and in turn Italy is never invaded.
German successes in Russia continue and eventually Moscow falls. Eventually the front turns into a stalemate, but the abundance of resources captured and the fact that Italy remains free from invasion results in enough German forces to properly man the "Atlantic Wall", thus preventing any discussion a D-Day type landing and further allowing Germany to focus on the Eastern front.
In the Pacific theater, things proceed historically (The Pacific theater was in many ways its own war, and what happened in Europe had little appreciable effect in the Pacific). Things proceed historically until after Japan is nuked twice and forced to surrender. At this point, the Soviets can be assumed to still be focused on Germany, and would not be able to historically invade Manchuria and North Korea. With this in mind, American forces land en masse in Korea, taking the whole peninsula.
With the Japanese surrender, Chiang Kai-Shek is able to occupy Manchuria and take possession of the heavy industrial machinery that historically the Soviets stole for their own use. Buttressed by the heavy industry in Manchuria and with American support in Korea ready to assist him, Chiang Kai-Shek is able to defeat the Communists and Mao Zedong is relegated to the pages of history.
At the same time, the weakened state of Russia presents both China and the U.S. a unique opportunity. With American assistance (which might seem odd at first glance given the historical WW2 relationship, but in fact it makes perfect sense -- the U.S. never liked the Soviets, and even sent troops after World War 1 to assist the White Russians fighting the Bolsheviks), China attacks Russia and captures Mongolia and Primorsky, historcal territories of the Qing dynasty. Now under attack from the east as well as the west, Russia folds to both Nazi and Sino-American demands.
With both Japan and the Soviets out of the war, the Western appetite for further conflict wanes considerably. A second Sitzkrieg envelops the European front, with Germany lacking the navy to attack and invade Britain and/or the U.S. By this time, assuming its around 1946, and with little willingness to nuke Germany due its relative strength (Germany in this position, unlike Japan, would be in a very strong position with many allies) and Germany's own development of the bomb, the Allies decide to go to the peace table with the Germans and Italians, resulting in this:
The darker variant of the color represents the direct control of a country, while the lighter color represents a puppet state/protectorate/satellite state. It is assumed here that the colonies of Vichy France, cutoff from France proper and with the Axis having no available means of reclaiming them (i.e. lack of naval superiority) would be ceded to or become de facto British possessions (likewise with Belgian Congo). Dutch Indonesia would likely become independent due to its insular and more removed nature.
China (under Republican control) would gain possession of Mongolia, Primsorky and Tibet (invading it while the Western powers sit idly by as they did with Communist China). Japan, all of Korea, and the Philippines would be under American control until independence would be granted. Greenland and Denmark would become U.S. possessions, gaining them from cutoff Denmark (historically they occupied them during the war and then gave them back).
Italy would receive the historically Italian town of Nice as well as the colonies of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, from an isolated Vichy France, while it would demand and receive claim over much of the Middle East and East Africa from the British (due to its entrenched military control with German assistance).
Russia's concessions to the Allies would be the aforementioned cession of Mongolia and Primorsky to China, as well as the granting of independence of its Central Asian Soviet Republics (which would quickly fall under the sway of Chinese influence). To Germany, Russia would cede Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic states, and the entirety of the Caucasus region. To Finland, Russia would cede Karelia and the surrounding territory, fulfilling a historical Finnish claim to these lands.
Germany itself would create satellite and puppet states in the Balkans and Eastern Europe (much like the Soviets did) as well as in Iran (which would not be invaded and put under joint Anglo-Soviet control as it was historically). It would also doubtlessly annex Alsace-Lorraine from France, as well Luxembourg, Ukraine and the Baltic states and surrounding areas, both for resources as well as lebensraum ('living space'). It would leave some areas, like Belorussia, as nominally independent as a matter of administrative efficiency. The dreams of a Greater Germany or Grossdeutschland would be realized.
So what would have happened after the dust had settled? Probably a sort of Cold War between Nazi Germany and the U.S., Britain as well as China, not much different from the historical Cold War. Russia, surrounded by hostile nations and having lost much of its best territory, would be relegated to regional power status along with France. Britain's empire would probably fall apart as it did historically.
For fun, I decided to look at the areas I've added to Germany and come up with modern GDP and population numbers. Using today's census numbers, this theoretical Greater Germany would have a population of 159,582,604 (almost exactly twice that of Germany's current population of 81,802,000) and a GDP of $4,093,670,000,000 (a 24% increase from Germany's current GDP). Greater Germany's population would rank 7th in the world, behind China, India, America, Indonesia, Brazil and Pakistan, and its GDP would rank 4th as it does now, though the gap between it and Japan at 3rd would be significantly reduced.
Obviously this is pretty flawed, since the development of these regions would have been vastly different, for better or for worse. Given the traditional strength of the German economy, these regions under German control would have probably been higher both in population and in terms of GDP than they are today.
Either way, it's fun food for thought.
A very interesting blog post, well researched, and it certainly made for good food for thought.
ReplyDeleteThough of course, it's all hearsay. I liked how you worked out what you thought would happen, though I personally think things would have been different. However, my thoughts often get into the whole, "What if" thinking.
For example, given the Nazi's victories in the Middle East, this would surely open the Red Sea and the Suez canal to the Axis powers, thus giving them access to the war in the Pacific. Given a stalemate on the Atlantic and Northern Sea front, and successes elsewhere, wouldn't momentum suggest to Hitler that he could afford to help out Japan in their fight against the US?
Secondly, what makes you think Hitler and the Axis Powers would have stopped at the Western Front, content with their Lebensraum? A stalemate, forces equally matched? By this point in reality, both sides were worn down, slowly running out of supplies. But that was because Germany had lost the Eastern front. With a victory in Russia, a whole new area of industrial opportunity is open to them. They suddenly have the strong liklihood of winning the war of attrition. Or at least, able to outlast the British and Americans (I guess we assume the US beefs up its war time production/rationing and shipment etc).
But how long would this last? Hitler now has a wide range of resources at his disposal, and can take the time to restock, plan and organise. The US lies 4,000 miles away. We assume that their is a stalemate, given that both sides have the bomb.
But would that be the case? In 1942, if my history serves me right, the German nuclear fusion project was more advanced than the US'. Without interruptions because of an Allied invasion, Germany would arguably obtain the bomb if not sooner, than the same time as the US. Indeed, the US was able to attract both refugees and material/technology from Germany which ultimately benefited the US. I am thinking of here of the V2 rocket for example. I think the US would eventually have developed these weapons etc. on their own, but Germany may well have had them first.
We must then ask, would Hitler have restrained from using the bomb? Was he logical? Not really. America was a long way away, a nuclear attack wouldn't have ramifications in Germany, unlike a US attack on Germany and its effect on Britain.
Of course we can't second guess Hitler, but I think if we are engaging in this kind of thinking we should certainly consider the socio-cultural impacts, not just the geo-political. What would a Nazi victory mean for the people of the world, not just the political landscape?
Would Hitler really have stopped and been content with his Greater Germany? Or would his thirst for power simply have grown? I feel like the second option is more likely, though thankfully, we will never know.
Finally, just one last question, out of curiosity. If there was a stalemate as you describe, would the British have kept their Empire? And for how long? How would that have played out do you think? Would it have helped the UK recover quicker? Surely the US would be in no position to demand decolonization? Or would they?
Great reading, thanks! And sorry for the delay in responding, I read this as soon as you told me about it, but never got around to replying!
For example, given the Nazi's victories in the Middle East...he could afford to help out Japan in their fight against the US?
ReplyDeleteThe reason this wouldn't happen is the absurd, almost comical, superiority at the sea that the Allies had with the combined Anglo-American navies. Germany had no surface fleet of note, Italy had a fairly large navy but lacked aircraft carriers, and Japan's navy was, of course, very good, but ultimately not good enough. Off the top of my head, I want to say that the number of American carriers in the Pacific by the end of the war was over a dozen, and of course Britain's navy was very good.
Secondly, what makes you think Hitler and the Axis Powers would have stopped at the Western Front, content with their Lebensraum? A stalemate, forces equally matched? ... able to outlast the British and Americans (I guess we assume the US beefs up its war time production/rationing and shipment etc).
The Western Front would have likely resulted in a stalemate because of the balance of forces present and the inexhaustible Soviet industrial base, most of which was moved to Siberia in the face of German advances. In my theoretical scenario, these Siberian factories would still be operating in full swing, and with the high manpower available the Soviets could have easily forced a stalemate. The other reason is terrain. Past the Black Sea is an enormous expanse of land that is full of harsh permafrost areas to the north and desert and dry steppe to the south.
But how long would this last? ... US lies 4,000 miles away. We assume that their is a stalemate, given that both sides have the bomb.
A stalemate for sure, the bomb, not so much.
But would that be the case? In 1942, if my history serves me right, the German nuclear fusion project was more advanced than the US'...Germany may well have had them first.
Perhaps in theory, but in practice Germany was not very close to a nuclear bomb. The raid on the heavy water facility in Norway was practically unnecessary because of the slow development by German scientists (surprisingly). And of course, there is the fact that Germany lost many of its best scientists to the US as you mention, and also the preoccupation with superfluous projects like the V2, whose effectiveness was minimal. The new resources available to Germany would have probably been thrown into these projects, like the V2 and the King Tiger or Maus super heavy tank, at Hitler's discretion. More useful projects like the ME262 jet fighter would have also probably gotten a lot of those resources.
We must then ask, would Hitler have restrained from using the bomb? Was he logical? ...unlike a US attack on Germany and its effect on Britain.
Actually, I think Hitler was pretty logical, and a shrewd diplomat. The biggest obstacle to the annexation of Austria was actually Mussolini, and Hitler patiently waited until a moment presented itself to take Austria without Italian intervention. That moment was after Italy invaded Ethiopia, leaving Italy condemned by the world community and increasingly in need of an ally, of which Germany was the only willing suitor.He also correctly calculated that the bumbling allies would allow him to not only take possession of Sudatenland but also outright annex Czechoslovakia. It was also under his watch that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, paving the way for his conquest of Poland and France without fear of Russian intervention. He did mastenly believe that France and Britain would allow him to conquer Poland, and his declaration of war against the USA was the height of folly, but overall I would argue he was fairly rational in a lot of decisions (at least the diplomatic ones).
Of course we can't second guess Hitler, ...What would a Nazi victory mean for the people of the world, not just the political landscape?
ReplyDeleteThat's tricky but very interesting. I tend to think that for Germans and other ethnic allies, like Italians, life under Greater Germany would have been pretty good minus the restrictions on freedom of speech.
For Slavs, especially Russians and Ukrainians, the results would have been devastating. To make room for German settlement, their land would most likely have been appropriated, and large numbers would be expelled from the country to Slavic satellite states like Bulgaria or moved onto Native American like reservations.
The biggest loser in this theoretical world I portray with a Greater Germany dominating Europe and Palestine held by Italy would of course be the Jews. There would be no Israeli state created, and Germany would have probably succeeded in eradicating European Jews.
Would Hitler really have stopped and been content with his Greater Germany?...thankfully, we will never know.
I feel like he would have been 'content'. I've always thought that portrayals of Hitler as a maniacal conqueror were unrealistic. There were tangible, easily identifiable reasons for Germany's territorial expansion. From regaining German lands to exacting revenge on France for the Versailles treaty, Hitler wasn't bent on conquering the world anymore than Lenin, Stalin and other communists were bent on world revolution. That is to say the rhetoric that matched their actions didn't necessarily reflect the reality of what would come to pass.
Hitler also had a deep affinity for Britain, viewing them as racial allies given their Anglo-Saxon heritage. He hoped to sign peace with them, and his sentiment was shared by other Germans. Rudolf Hess in his famous 'last flight' attempted but failed to do just that.
Finally, just one last question, out of curiosity. If there was a stalemate as you describe, would the British have kept their Empire?...demand decolonization? Or would they?
I don't think the British empire would have remained intact, though I do think the British would have held onto their African colonies for much longer.
For India, the seeds of nationalism provided by a liberal British education had already gone into full bloom by the time of World War II. This coupled with the fact that the British would never be able to truly acquiesce to Indian demands to be treated as equal citizens of the empire and that the British were reliant on Indians, epitomized by the Indian Civil Service, to run the colony, means that India would have broken away as it did historically.